GR 212008; (November, 2016) (Digest)
G.R. No. 212008 . November 16, 2016
WILLIAM ENRIQUEZ AND NELIA VELA-ENRIQUEZ, PETITIONERS, VS. ISAROG LINE TRANSPORT, INC. AND VICTOR SEDENIO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Petitioners William Enriquez and Nelia Vela-Enriquez are the parents of Sonny Enriquez, who died in a bus collision on July 7, 1998. The bus owned by respondent Isarog Line Transport, Inc. and driven by Victor Sedenio collided with another bus. The Spouses Enriquez filed a complaint for damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held Isarog Line and its driver solidarily liable and awarded damages, including ₱1,038,960.00 for loss of earning capacity based on a certification from Sonny’s employer, ASLAN Security Systems, Inc., stating his daily wage was ₱185.00.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision but deleted the award for loss of earning capacity. The CA held that while the certification from ASLAN was admissible, it lacked probative value because the signatory was not presented to testify. The CA instead awarded ₱25,000.00 as temperate damages. The Spouses Enriquez filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, which was denied, prompting this Petition for Review.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in deleting the award of ₱1,038,960.00 as damages for loss of earning capacity of the deceased Sonny Enriquez.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred. The Supreme Court reinstated the RTC’s award for loss of earning capacity. Article 2206 of the Civil Code mandates indemnity for loss of earning capacity, which is a form of actual damage requiring competent proof. The general rule is that such claims must be substantiated by documentary evidence. However, evidence not objected to during trial is deemed admitted and can be validly considered by the court.
Here, the petitioners presented a certification from ASLAN Security Systems, Inc. during trial, and the defense did not object to its presentation. Following the precedent in People v. Lopez, such unobjected-to documentary evidence is deemed admitted and possesses probative value for determining damages. The CA’s reliance on Serra v. Mumar was misplaced, as that case involved only self-serving testimonial evidence with no supporting documents. In contrast, this case involved competent documentary evidence. Using the settled formula for computing loss of earning capacity—Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 (80 – age at death)] x Gross Annual Income – 50% of Gross Annual Income—with Sonny’s age at 26 and daily wage of ₱185.00, the correct amount is ₱1,038,960.00. Therefore, the RTC’s computation and award were reinstated.